From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 27 00:57:09 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A33CE2 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 00:57:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0259C67D68 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 00:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBR0v7XC065524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:57:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id sBR0v71G065521; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:57:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:57:07 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Dutch Ingraham Subject: Re: Do I want to switch to the new pkg(8) format? In-Reply-To: <549E007B.8090101@gmx.us> Message-ID: References: <549E007B.8090101@gmx.us> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:57:07 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 00:57:09 -0000 On Fri, 26 Dec 2014, Dutch Ingraham wrote: > Once you have a current tree, there are generally three ways to build > the port (i.e., make a binary, executable "package" out of it): make (1), the > portmaster (8) tool, or the portupgrade tool. They are not mutually > exclusive, i.e., you can install a port with make install clean> then later upgrade it with . Right. Really, all that portmaster or portupgrade do is automate some of the steps. Both of these tools grew out of the problem of upgrading. When there are several things to upgrade, packages which are required by the others must be upgraded first. portmaster/portupgrade sort out the dependencies and build the requirements in the right order. They do that by using the standard port make targets. In fact, it is possible to get them to show a list of what they would do, and then do it by hand yourself. What I'm trying to say is that they automate the process, but it is still the ports system that is doing the building.